My own school, University of Washington, was apparently one of the early signers of the ACUPCC.  This past year or so they have had a university task force comprising faculty, staff, and students, to plan how UW can become "carbon-neutral", hopefully by the year 2050, though they don't appear to be confident of meeting that goal.  They recently conducted an on-line survey on the task force's initial report, inviting commentary.  My response was that I took the minority view, that anthropogenic global warming, whether via carbon emissions or otherwise, is not an established scientific fact, and that the preponderance of current evidence is against the AGW theory.  (For those who want some serious information on the minority view, I would recommend the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works minority page at epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm ; the International Climate Science Coalition at www.climatescienceinternational.org/ , including the proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change; and the Watt's Up With That website at wattsupwiththat.com/ .)  In view of this and the fact that the extreme proposed by some are extremely costly, I believe it would be better for UW to withdraw from the ACUPCC.  I'm all for recycling and care of the environment, for which reasonable measures often make good economic sense.  But some of the proposed measures are simply over the top.

To be fair, I have not yet seen UW try to incorporate environmentalism into its mission statement, nor,  as far as I am aware, have they tried to impose any sort of environmental ideological litmus test to the employees of the university.  Given the shaky, controversial science on which many current and proposed policies are based, more honest scientific study of the subject would be appropriate, but for the same reasons it would be quite inappropriate for a university to foreclose debate on the subject by dictating an orthodoxy.

 I should amend my earlier comment:  I referred to those who do not accept the AGW theory (aka global warming skeptics) as the "minority view".  By this I mean the minority of politicians and policy-makers.  I did not mean to imply that skeptics form the minority of scientists and technically trained people.  In fact, the evidence suggests that a majority of scientists and technically trained people are skeptical of the AGW theory, as evidenced by the endorsers of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change  www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php, as well as the over 32,000 signers in the U.S. of the Global Warming Petition Project www.petitionproject.org/.

 The one and only aim of higher education is the pursuit of knowledge.  Taking positions on "the environment" is idiotic.  STUDYING "the environment," including biology, ecology, geology, astronomy, physics, mathematics, meteorology, etc. could be part of the aim of a university, but the self-designated "environmentalists" at my university study none of these, but only how to politic.  Have any of the members of this committee studied any of these subjects?  Have they read Björn Lomborg's THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST?

The educational mission of a university is the "dispassionate pursuit of truth" -- wherever that truth may lead.

As commentator "Athena" points out, there is a place in the academy for the study of environmental issues, and that place is in biology, ecology, geology and other courses and departments of its kind. Also,  there is a difference between environmental action and environmental studies. The latter implies rigorous scientific research, the former ideological advocacy and activism which the ACUPCC clearly embraces. Besides, does "taking a leadership role in this effort" and "accelerate education and research" to minimize the carbon footprint sound like unbiased  research? Rather, the ACUPCC's concern with the carbon footprint sounds eerily similar to the diversity and social justice footprints that by now can be traced across every American college and university curriculum. 

Finally, there may not be a litmus test for demonstrating one's commitment to environmental issues in academia quite yet, but I have no trouble envisioning one. Sorry, but the ACUPCC's fervent approach does not pass the basic smell test.